Department of Justice
www.justice.gc.ca
Common menu bar links
The Effects of Divorce on Children : A Selected Literature Review
3. FACTORS AFFECTING CHILDREN’S POSTDIVORCE ADJUSTMENT (cont'd)
3. FACTORS AFFECTING CHILDREN’S POSTDIVORCE ADJUSTMENT (cont'd)
3.3 Situational Characteristics (cont'd)
3.3.7 Custody and Access Arrangements
The impact of custody and access arrangements on the children of separating couples has been the subject of much debate but perhaps not enough systematic study. For discussion purposes here, it might be useful to distinguish six types of custody arrangements: exclusive custody (one custodial parent and no access by non-custodial parent); sole custody (one custodial parent with access by non-custodial parent); joint legal custody (shared responsibility in decision making about aspects of child’s life); joint physical custody (shared responsibility in daily care and childrearing); and, split custody (siblings are split between parents).
Major policy changes in the area of family law have promoted changes in the structure of post-divorce families in several jurisdictions, most notably the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia. Increasingly, we are witnessing an emphasis on agreement rather than conflict between parents and attempts to maximise or maintain relationships between fathers and their children. Mothers have traditionally been given custody of the children in the majority of cases, and fathers were allowed visitation but there is some evidence that shifts are occurring. Little (1991) found that joint legal custody was more common that sole legal custody in Los Angeles. However, sole maternal physical custody remained the most frequent award, with joint physical custody infrequently awarded (less than one family in six). Moreover, maternal custody arrangements appear to be more stable than other arrangements: children who live with their mother after divorce are more likely to remain in this arrangement during the first three to four years after separation, while over half of the children who start out by spending time in each parent’s household or who start out living with their father make at least one change (Maccoby & Mnookin, 1992). In Canada, the data show that since 1978, the percentage of cases in which mothers get custody as gone from 79 percent to 73 percent. The percentage of cases in which fathers get custody has hovered around 15 percent, while the proportion of cases in which joint custody is awarded has increased significantly from 1 percent in 1986 to 14 percent in 1990 (Statistics Canada, 1993).
Kelly (1993) reports that in California joint legal custody was not found to be significantly linked with higher levels of father involvement in decision making or time with children, nor did it result in greater compliance with child support after controlling for income. There was a slight decrease in discord of the joint legal custody group by final divorce but no corresponding increase in co-operative communication. However, Bahr et al. (1994) cite United States census data suggesting that fathers who had either joint custody or visitation privileges had a greater likelihood of paying child support. In terms of patterns in custody arrangements, Bahr’s study found that joint legal custody was adopted in 21 percent of cases; mothers continued to receive sole custody in the majority of cases (70 percent); father’s with sole custody were a small minority (6 percent); and, split custody occurred in about 5 percent of cases. Interestingly, these patterns did not change significantly from 1970 to 1993.
Whatever the custody and access arrangement, the overwhelming pattern has been for most divorced fathers to stop seeing their children, and for those who maintain contact to reduce the frequency of their visits. According to Seltzer (1991) about one in five divorced fathers has not seen his children in the past year, and less than one out of every two fathers sees his children more than several times a year. In addition, the longer divorced fathers and their children live apart, the less contact they have with each other. Non-residential mothers appear to be more likely than non-residential fathers to maintain contact with the children, but among families in which the non-residential parent has at least some contact, mothers and fathers are equally likely to see the children weekly or more frequently. Some fathers do maintain a presence in their children’s lives after divorce: nearly 25 percent of non-residential fathers see their children at least weekly and more than a third who see their children also spend extended periods of time with them in visits that last longer than a weekend (Seltzer,1993). Fathers who see their children also are more likely to maintain contact by phone or mail while non-residential fathers who do not see their children do not compensate by increased mail or phone contact.
In examining the impact of the Children Act in the United Kingdom, which promotes not just on-going contact but in fact what they call co-parenting, Neale and Smart (1997) found evidence to support the idea that fathers are re-evaluating their children and do seem to want to have their children living with them after divorce. There is no way of knowing though whether this is a new or growing trend. They also point out that the material and emotional resources for sustaining co-parenting as fostered by the Act are very scarce, and there is no real infra-structure available properly to support co-parenting during marriage, let alone after divorce.
Although the granting of sole custody to one parent with access privileges to the noncustodial parent has been the norm, it is recognised that in some cases (e.g., abuse) exclusive custody is necessary. The general view has been that not granting access privileges to the noncustodial parent is an extreme measure which can have a negative impact on the child. Research has found that diminished contact with the non-custodial parent has a negative impact on the relationship between the non-custodial parent and the child (McKinnon & Wallerstein, 1988) and that breaks in parent-child bonding can have negative effects on children’s emotional and social development (Lund, 1984; Magid & Oborn, 1986), as well as on behaviour (Pesikoff & Pesikoff, 1985).
Access to the non-custodial parent, however, may be more complex than was previously believed. For instance, Johnston, Kline and Tschann (1989) found that children who have more frequent access to both parents are more emotionally troubled and behaviourally disturbed than those with less access. These results were found regardless of whether inter-parental aggression was present (although it should be noted that all families in this study were involved in custody and access disputes). Healy et al. (1990) found that, among younger children and boys, frequent and regular visits with the non-custodial father increased self-esteem but led to more behaviour problems. Among older children and girls, frequent and regular visits were associated with lower self-esteem but fewer behaviour problems. Although a non-custodial parent may be granted access to a child, visitation may or may not take place. Kelly (1993) claims that little research has been conducted on the determinants of father dropout after separation, although she suggests that it may be because they are not given access (by the courts or by the custodial mother). She contends that contact with the non-custodial parent isn’t unidimensional nor always beneficial, but rather depends on the child’s age and sex, closeness of the relationship prior to the divorce, conflict, maternal and paternal adjustment, and the mother’s hostility following the separation.
Generally, studies have found that children express a strong preference for flexible and unrestricted contact with the non-custodial parent (Mitchell, 1988; Neugebauer, 1989; Wallerstein, 1980).
It has been suggested that joint custody may be more beneficial than sole custody because it conveys to children that their parents are committed to them (Glover & Steele, 1989). On the other hand, children in joint custody arrangements may have problems in coping with the different family morals, values or practices between the two households (Wilson, 1985). In addition, joint custody may inadvertently provide the opportunity for greater inter-parental conflict, particularly with regard to key issues such as the child’s bed time, discipline and the amount of television time allowed to the child (Kurtz & Derevensky, 1994).
Empirical findings in support of joint custody are equivocal at best. This may be because research conducted with the two types of joint custody (legal and physical) have not been well described. According to Kurtz and Derevensky (1994), investigations of joint custody most frequently employ joint legal custody arrangements, resulting in very limited implications or erroneous conclusions about joint physical custody. Although it is generally acknowledged that children from intact families are the best adjusted, some research has found that children living in joint physical custody arrangements are better adjusted emotionally and socially than those in sole custody (Glover & Steele, 1989; Neugebauer, 1989). However, McKinnon and Wallerstein (1987) found that children in joint custody were indistinguishable in their initial distress and responses to marital rupture from those in sole custody. Similarly, Kline, Tschann, Johnston and Wallerstein (1989) found no differences between joint physical custody and mother-custody arrangements in behavioural, emotional or social adjustments of children.
Research examining when joint custody works best has found that, among those electing shared parenting, some report high and others low satisfaction. Kurtz and Derevensky (1994) suggest that the successful implementation of joint custody requires that both parents be child- focused, committed to parenting, respect each other as parents, maintain flexibility, be cooperative, provide emotional stability and have the ability to set aside inter-parental conflict and personal needs for the sake of maintaining the shared parenting agreement. As Neal and Smart (1997) state: "Developing and sustaining co-parenting involves and enormous amount of time, emotional labour and sacrifice. It is likely to involve constant negotiations over, and fine tuning of, arrangements as well as ongoing debates over child care and discipline. The needs of new partners, children and the other parent need to be juggled. There is a constant concern over the adjustment of the children to a mobile existence and two lifestyles and environments."
(at 208).
Kelly (1993) suggests that custody status alone doesn’t predict post-divorce adjustment but rather that the outcomes for children are related to a complex range of socio-economic and psychological factors and depend less upon the structure of the post-divorce family than upon the quality, stability and reliability of the care received, particularly from the primary, residential parent. For example, court-ordered joint physical custody results in less satisfaction than voluntary arrangements, and when there is conflict, those in joint custody do less well. Finally, she argues that no differences have been found between maternal and paternal custody on a number of variables.
Kurtz and Derevensky (1994) point out the need for further research in this area, such as: a factorial study examining the effects of differential child care alternatives upon the family system; a longitudinal study to observe differences in family dynamics between joint physical and legal custody; an examination of which parents and children benefit from shared parenting; and, an examination of the effects of shared parenting on inter-parental relationships.
3.3.8 Environmental Changes
Geographic movement is common among divorced families. Schlesinger (1982) observed that 40 percent of the children of separation or divorce had changed neighbourhoods following the divorce of their parents. Fulton (1979) found that children had moved an average of two times, and as many as eight times, following the marital dissolution. The reality for children and single parents is that divorce often means a change in school, neighbourhood, and peer groups. Physical dislocation may ultimately have an influence on many aspects of the child’s life, including academic performance, peer relations, psychological well-being and physical health. Although there is little research available in this area, what has been done suggests that such changes may affect some aspects of children’s functioning (Grych & Fincham, 1992). For instance, Stolberg and Anker (1983) argue that change is the major determinant in the development of child psychopathology in some children of divorce. In their study, they found that children of divorce reacted differently to environmental changes than children of intact families. As environmental change increased, behaviour pathology among the divorced group increased, while behaviour pathology among the intact group decreased. Similarly, Hodges et al. (1984) found that as the amount of significant environmental changes increased, children become increasingly depressed, and exhibited more anxiety.
3.4 Summary
The above discussion demonstrates that there are many factors besides parental divorce which have an impact on children’s adjustment. However, the relation between these variables and outcome is very complex and, in many cases, not well defined or understood. What does appear to be increasingly evident is that family processes that exist during marriage have a critical impact on children’s psychological adjustment and that information about the child’s pre- divorce family has to be integrated with information about the divorce process and post-divorce factors to better advance our understanding. Grych and Fincham (1992) argue that comparisons between groups of children from divorced and intact families are less illuminating than investigations of variables that may mediate post-divorce adaptation. Therefore, they suggest that the focus of divorce research has shifted from examining structure (i.e., divorced versus intact families) to studying the process.
